Use when the identification of a monetary or macro shock (or a structural mechanism) is the bottleneck for a Journal of Monetary Economics (JME) manuscript — high-frequency surprises, narrative shocks, proxy/SVAR, local projections, sign restrictions, and model-based identification. Stress-tests the design before exhibits are drafted.
Scanned 6/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jme-identification-strategy --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Jme Identification Strategy?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-jme-identification-strategy)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: jme-identification-strategy
description: Use when the identification of a monetary or macro shock (or a structural mechanism) is the bottleneck for a Journal of Monetary Economics (JME) manuscript — high-frequency surprises, narrative shocks, proxy/SVAR, local projections, sign restrictions, and model-based identification. Stress-tests the design before exhibits are drafted.
---
# Identification Strategy (jme-identification-strategy)
## When to trigger
- The "monetary shock" is a raw policy-rate change with no exogeneity argument
- A SVAR uses a recursive ordering that referees will dispute
- High-frequency surprises are not separated from the Fed "information effect"
- A DSGE mechanism is asserted but not identified from the data/moments
- You are unsure the design clears the JME bar for a credible macro claim
## The JME identification bar
JME is **monetary economics and macroeconomics**, so "identification" means isolating an exogenous **shock** or pinning down a **structural mechanism**, not a micro treatment effect. With **single anonymized review** and **at least two specialist referees**, the identifying assumption must be legible and defended in the registers macroeconomists expect. The credibility ladder the field implicitly applies (strong → weaker):
1. **High-frequency identification** — monetary surprises in a narrow window around FOMC announcements, with the **pure policy shock separated from the information/forward-guidance component** (Nakamura–Steinsson, Miranda-Agrippino–Ricco, Jarociński–Karadi-style decompositions).
2. **Narrative shocks** — Romer–Romer-style records of policy intent, orthogonalized to Greenbook/Tealbook forecasts; narrative fiscal shocks (military news, tax changes).
3. **Proxy / external-instrument SVAR** — the surprise series as an instrument for the policy rate inside a VAR; report relevance and the implied IRFs.
4. **Sign / long-run restrictions** — theory-consistent restrictions when timing or IV are unavailable; report robustness to the restriction set.
5. **Model-based (quantitative) identification** — discipline structural parameters with micro moments and matched second moments; report identification diagnostics (e.g., Iskrev) and prior sensitivity.
## Branch paths
### Branch A: High-frequency / narrative monetary shocks
- Define the event window precisely; show the surprise is news, not anticipated.
- **Strip the information effect**: a contractionary surprise that *raises* expected output signals the central bank's private information — decompose it.
- Aggregate to the desired frequency carefully; discuss attenuation and measurement error.
### Branch B: SVAR / proxy-SVAR
- State the identification scheme (recursive, sign, long-run, IV/proxy) and defend it.
- Report instrument relevance (for proxy-SVAR), IRF confidence bands, lag selection, and stability.
- Show robustness to ordering / restriction choices; report FEVDs.
### Branch C: Local projections (Jordà)
- Compare LP and VAR IRFs; LP is more robust to misspecification but noisier.
- Use lag-augmentation; LP-IV when using an external instrument; HAC/Newey–West or clustered SEs.
### Branch D: DSGE / quantitative mechanism
- Identify the new mechanism from data: which moments move when the friction is on vs. off?
- Report Bayesian estimation diagnostics (convergence, identification, posterior predictive) or calibration targets.
- Show the policy conclusion changes *because* of the mechanism, not an unrelated assumption.
## Checklist
- [ ] The shock/mechanism named in one sentence and defended as exogenous/identified
- [ ] Monetary surprises separated from the information effect (if high-frequency)
- [ ] SVAR identification scheme stated and robustness shown
- [ ] LP-vs-VAR comparison reported where relevant
- [ ] DSGE identification diagnostics / calibration targets reported
- [ ] The claim never exceeds what the identification supports
## Output format
```
【Approach】high-frequency / narrative / proxy-SVAR / LP / sign-restriction / model-based
【Shock or mechanism】one sentence
【Exogeneity / identification argument】one line
【Information-effect handling】Y/N (if HF)
【Robustness done】[ordering, restriction set, LP-vs-VAR, identification diagnostics, ...]
【Next step】jme-data-analysis
```
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!